Dr.
M.M. Thomas was one of the formost Christian leaders of the nineteenth century.He was Moderator of the Central Committee of
the World Council of Churches and Governor of Nagaland. An ecumenical
theologian of repute, he wrote more than sixty books on Theology and Mission,
including 24 theological commentaries on the books of the bible in Malayalam
(the official language of the Indian state of Kerela). This
book was jointly published by Christava Sahhya Samhhi (OSS), Tiruvalla, Kerela,
and The Indian Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (ISPOK), Post Box
1585, Kashmere Gate, Delhi - 110 006, in 1996. Price Rs. 60. Used by permission
of the publisher.This material was
prepared for Religion Online by Ted & Winnie Brock.

Chapter 3: Meanings of Being a Secular State: A Critical Evaluation

A talk at the
Seminar on the topic at Kottarakara, Kerala on 18 November 1995

The word “Secularism” is used in India usually in relation to the idea
of the Secular State which has been established in the religiously pluralistic
context of India. The Constitution of India when formulated by the Constituent
Assembly did not have the word “secular” to denote the character of the State
in independent India, but it was assumed in several of its clauses. But the
word was added later in the seventies through an amendment. The Supreme Court
of India has declared it to be a basic character of the Indian state which
should not be changed.

It essentially aims at avoiding the
medieval pattern of state which was “theocratic”. All traditional states and
societies in the medieval period have been theocracies. State and society were
integrated with the authority of one or other single “established” religion
whose sanction determined the law of citizenship and social structure. In
medieval Europe it was Christendom, and in the Arab countries it was Islamic,
and in India it was Hindu or Islamic. A theocracy gives first class citizenship
only to the adherents of the established religion; the others are legally
restricted in their religious practices and discriminated adversely in social
life and in the provision of social opportunities. The Secular State is
anti-theocratic in the sense that the State has no special relation to any one
religion. Therefore the adherents of all religions and no religion have the
same status and rights of citizenship including freedom of religion/belief and
freedom from discrimination in civic life on the basis of religion/belief. It
gives all citizens in the land, irrespective of their religious or ideological
belief or affiliation,

1 This historical part has already been
given in essay No. 2

2 Characterised as “Closed Secularism” in
Essay No. 2

the right to cooperate in the building of
the national community as a “fraternity” of individual persons and peoples on
the basis of equality before the law of the land.

In the Indian national movement, from the
time national struggle for freedom became militant, there has been a conflict
between “secular” nationalism and “theocratic (Hindu/Islamic)” nationalisms.
Gandhi with his reformed Hinduism and Nehru with his secular humanist belief
reinforced the secular idea of politics and state, against the theocratic.
Though partition of India and the communal (Hindu/Muslim) killings at the time
of Independence and the Hindu ideologist assassination of Gandhi showed the
strength of the theocratic ideology in Indian politics, the Union of India
established itself as a secular nation-state1. Even today the
secular versus theocratic political ideology is an important part of the Indian
political scenario.

There are various approaches to religion
and religions which have gone into the make up of Indian secularism. The
advocates of each of these approaches have their own interpretation of the
political meaning of it. Three of these deserve special mention.

1. The idea that secularism confines
religion to the private realm and bars it from any relation to the public life
which is to be guided purely by secularist ideologies which deny any religious
view of reality2

2. That secularism is based on the doctrine
of the equality of religions.

3. That secularism means that the State
guarantees the security of the laws and structures of family and society of
religious communities which have the sanction of traditional religion.

We shall evaluate these critically to
point out their lopsidedness in the light of a more adequate definition of
secularism. A positive idea of secularism will, I hope, get clarified in the
process of this critical evaluation.

Firstly, the approach of anti-religious
philosophy of secularism. The early Liberal Rationalist Nehru and Dialectical
Materialist E.M. Sankaran Nampoothiripad have maintained the position that
Secularism means that religion is a “private” affair, of individual’s belief
and worship and that it should not have anything to do ultimately with “public”
life of state or society. EMS often quotes Jesus’ words, Give to God and Caesar
what belongs to each, with this interpretation.

There is a good deal of truth in this
interpretation if we look historically at the emergence of the idea of the
secular state in Europe and India. In the former, the Catholic-Protestant Warto secure domination of public life lasted three decades before they
listened to the rationalist proposal to build nation-states which were common
to all who lived in the territory irrespective of their religious affiliation
or their atheistic faith. The Hindu-Muslim communal riots in India also made a
certain separation of religion from public education andparty-politics
a necessity for public peace in India. And if we look at the dominant influence
shaping modern Indian public life, it has been the impact of Liberal or Marxian
secular humanist ideology. The Preamble of the Constitution of India speaks of
“We the People” committing ourselves to build a nation-state as the instrument
of a new society based on liberty, equality, fraternity and justice. The first
three comes from the slogans of the French Revolution and the last is inspired
by the Russian revolution.

Nevertheless, the logical goal of this
“secularist” (as different from an “open secular”) interpretation is that the
State should be a sort of anti-theo “theocracy” with some anti-religious
ideology as its established “quasi-religion”, promoting secularization of all
public life. Kamal Pasha tried this in Turkey, Stalin in the Soviet Union and
Mao in China. In these countries the right of individual to practice religion
in the privacy of their religious group was legally granted, but the right to
propagate it (either to educate children and youth in it or to make its
insights the basis of a prophetic role in politics, economics or society) was
constitutionally banned. That right of propagation was given only to the
official ideology. Of course the attempt failed.

In any case, no religion worth the name
would accept this interpretation of religion as limited to individual’s piety.
If religion is concerned with ultimate Truth or God, it cannot but have its
implications for the whole of life, private and public, and therefore the
fundamental human right of religious freedom should include the right to
express religious faith in prophetic ministry in society and politics in the
name of justice. Gandhi has given expression to his position that he cannot
conceive of religion and politics in separation.

In fact, the religious view considers the
secularist “mechanical materialist view of reality as too reductionist and as
leaving out the “organic” and “spiritual” dimensions of human being and history
and therefore as unable to renew the values of humanism and its reverence for
life and the dignity of the human person in society in the name of which
secularism started to protest against religious authoritarianism. Hitlerism and
Stalinism have proved beyond doubt that even secularism can be authoritarian,
even totalitarian which leaves no room for any other effective stream of
thought and life. Further. secularist ideologies have created a spiritual
vacuum in the life of the secularized people. leading many to return to
religious fundamentalism and communalism in militant forms. The only answer to
such a situation is the witness of the relevance of reformed religions with
their holistic view of reality for public life.

Pandit Nehru himself, though remaining
skeptical of institutionalized religions, had in later years. given expression
in his Interview with Karanjia. to the idea that material advance, if it is to
become meaningful and to enhance the quality of life, should recognize the
spiritual real iii of eternal values towards which religions point. The
Socialist Lohia spoke of the necessity of a synthesis between Indian
spirituality and dialectical materialism. Jai Prakash Narain in his last phase,
gave up materialism and accepted Gandhian spirituality as the basis of his
politics of the Total Revolution.

But that does not mean that religion must
enter politics for the purpose of securing power for the religious community.
Religion is concerned with the meaning of life and with faith expressing itself
in bringing forgiving love in inter-personal relations and justice for the poor
and the weaker sections of society in inter-people power-relations of public
life. If religions thus eschew separate “communal power” and seek justice in
society, there is no reason why for this purpose, they should not bring their
specific faith-insights regarding public morality into dialogue and common
action through secular multi-religious groups open for faith-interaction among
themselves as well as with secular ideologies. Of course, religions should have
their separate explorations of their separate theologies of public life, and
also their education of the laity for their ministry in the realm of secular
public society and state. In institutions of service to the poor, where no issue
of power is involved. separate action is legitimate. But in public action
involving power, especially in politics, it is better that they work through
open multi-religious political parties rather than through political parties
confined to the adherents of one religion which runs the risk of falling into
the danger of being swayed by religious communal self-interest and search for
communal power over against other religious communities. What is called for
here is that the religious concern for public life be expressed through the
faithful laity and not through the institutional authority of religions, that
is. in a secular and not the traditional theocratic manner in a religiously
pluralistic situation.

In fact, religions will also be more
truly religious if they are not tied to the State and its exercise of power.
The insight of the Free Church traditions that the Constantinian establishment
of Christianity has perverted the Christian church is important for Christians
to remember.

What is called for is a spiritual
reinforcement of “Open Secularism” by the renascent religions.

A second interpretation of Secularism is
by the advocates of Gandhism and other ideologies of Liberal Hinduism like
Radhakrishnan. It declares that the idea of Indian Secularism is an expression
of the toleration based on the traditional Hindu doctrine of the equality of
religions. Gandhi’s opposition to the two-nation theory of the Muslim League
based on religious difference between Hinduism and Islam and the partition of
the country arising from it was indeed religious. Gandhi said. Partition means
a potent untruth. My whole soul rebels against the idea that Hinduism and Islam
represent two antagonistic cultures and doctrines. To assent to such a doctrine
for me is a denial of God....we are all, no matter by what name designated.
children of God”. Radhakrishnan says, that secularism is based, not on
irreligion or atheism, but on “the universality of spiritual values which may
be attained by a variety of ways”. Unity is the ultimate reality and not
Plurality

Donald Smith In his study of Indian
Secularism points out the significant contribution made to the idea by the
attitude of toleration arising from the Hindu doctrine of equality and unity of
religions.

However, this toleration of plurality is
on the spiritual assumption that plurality, (that is, all differences). is
unreal. It is a characteristic of the religions which elevate mystic
realization of the formless and nameless Spirit as the ultimate human destiny;
they consider historical religions with their nama and rupa as
belonging to the world of maya to be transcended. For this reason, they
cannot comprehend the prophetic religions (the Jewish, the Christian and the
Islamic) which emphasize that the ultimate destiny of human beings is to serve
God’s Purpose in human history, which Purpose He has revealed in some unique
historical Person. Law or Event with nama and rupa. Since
Hinduism as a mystic religion cannot comprehend this historical nature of
prophetic missionary religions, it gives them also a mystic interpretation; so
much so, Hinduism cannot tolerate them until these religions themselves accept
the mystic interpretation of the unity and equality of all religions. (This has
been clarified by Fr. Sebastian Kappen in his booklet on Understanding
Communalism, about which reference is made in several essays.)

Of course democratic toleration is
toleration of real plurality and differences. That also requires a doctrine of
equality. But it is equality of “persons” and not equality of “gods” or even
“ideas”. Persons who in their moral integrity pursues truth may come to accept
one religion or another or may reject all religions and acknowledge the truth
of atheism; and they should be free to propagate and give expression to the truth
as they differently see it. It is in the freedom before the challenge of
ultimate Truth and penultimate truths, human persons are equal, an equality
that should bc recognized by the law of the state so long as a person respects
the same freedom of other persons.

This does not preclude the exploration of
mystic and prophetic religions to dialogue with each other regarding the
character of interfaith relations. There is a common recognition of the
religious dimension of human selfhood in which they are united. Beyond that
there must be mutual interpenetration as a result of living together. Certainly
equality of religions is one doctrine of inter-religious relations which needs
to be discussed among religions. Missionary and prophetic religions have been
quite intolerant of other religions in their history; and Hindutva is Hinduism
taking into itself the worst inhuman features of that Semitic intolerance which
these historical religions are now seeking to shed.Indeed, all prophetic religions have to learn a great deal from
the mystic religious approach which emphasizes unity and equality. But when
many in India are attracted by atheistic ideologies and their emphasis on the
historical dimension of human destiny, mystic religions can also learn a great
deal from prophetic religions which affirm the religious significance of the
historical dimension. In fact, all religions and secularist ideologies have a
common task which unites them, namely the humanization of the modern
technological culture through the development of a common post-modern humanism
which incorporates the valid insights of all religions, ideologies and the
sciences.

The third interpretation of Indian
Secularism is from the point of view of the minority communal consciousness of
the Muslims of India. They consider the constitutional right of religious
freedom given to all citizens under the Secular State as guaranteeing all
religious communities the right to follow their traditional “personal” law
regulating family and community relations which are sanctioned by religion. It
is on that basis that the Muslim authorities guarding their family laws opposed
the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Shabano case and continues to oppose
the idea of a Uniform Civil Code which will entail modification of their
religiously sanctioned Shariat Law. I suppose the advocacy of Sankaracharya of
Pun to preserve laws of untouchability and sati which were religiously
sanctioned in Hinduism also come from the same interpretation of the religious
freedom under India’s Secularism. The opposition of Christian bishops to the
revision of the family law of the Christian community also arises from the same
source.

This however is
a clear misinterpretation. The Constitution in guaranteeing religious freedom
to citizens spells out clearly that it will not preclude the state from
recodification of family and community laws which go against the principles of
liberty, equality, fraternity and justice in man-woman and inter-caste
relations even if they are sanctioned by religion. These social relations are
declared secular areas calling for change in new directions. In fact the
fundamental rights of the citizen require that all traditional communities
change, breaking traditional hierarchies and patriarchies, to bring about
social justice by giving the dalits, the tribals and the women who were
excluded from the traditional power-structures of society, fuller participation
in the power-structures; and the State is called upon to assist it by suitable
legislation and other means.

Of course that
does not mean that the diversity of social codes related to diversity of
cultures should be destroyed. But all have to acknowledge the common framework
of egalitarian justice and recodify their traditional civil codes which were
formulated in other times and under other principles. This is by no means an
infringement of religious freedom which is given under Secularism.

In fact, all
religious communities in all parts of the world have been making changes to
respond to the new conceptions of egalitarian justice to which the subject
peoples have been awakened. Religions can rightly claim that these new
democratic values which Secular Humanism has brought to light are derived from
the religious conceptions of the dignity of human beings in society but which
they neglected in the past; and that therefore in assimilating them into their
religious reformation they are only claiming their own and preventing their
getting perverted in the secularist framework of Materialism and Individualism.

Summing up. one
may say that Open Secularism and Renascent Religion are allies and need to
reinforce each other in public life to redeem the new human values of freedom,
equality and justice and enhance the quality of national fraternity in a
situation of religious and ideological pluralism.